Thursday, July 2, 2009

Way to go Helen! / Run

I've never thought highly of Helen Thomas but when she's fed up at the Obama administration that's pretty telling. She's an uber-liberal who, as far as I know, has kissed Obama's ass like most of the rest of the mainstream media. Here she is, along with Chip Reid of CBS News, questioning the integrity of an Obama administration Town Hall event about healthcare in America. What's being questioned is the idea of the president using Pre-selected questions. That will allow him to skate through with ease and make his agenda look good. It's not right to have nobody challenging this healthcare agenda that the president wants to force upon us. Is this the presidency that 53% of the voters voted for? It's all about control -- Control the people, look good, if possible don't allow them to question hard and challenging questions. What happened to transparency? That was just another lie.

With Obama throwing money at everything, he has caused the deficit to skyrocket and there's simply no end or relief in sight. His ideas cost a LOT of money and this is America where Raising Taxes is not wanted by a majority of the people. (Is that foolish thinking?! Should people be wanting to pay higher taxes? That's insanity not to mention it's UNamerican.) When taxes are raised/people's cost of living escalates higher than it is today, then there will be severe backlash against those responsible for that. This is America where people want to keep MORE of the money they work hard to earn. I'm working for ME and MY FAMILY ONLY. That's American. We don't want to feel like we're living in a commune where our paychecks are shared with the wealthy and with those who don't strive to make anything of their lives. My neighbor is not my financial responsibility. I do want to help my neighbors... but I want that to be MY choice. Special interest programs might be created with the best of intentions -- but don't force me to pay for them.

Basically -- FUCK YOU, federal government (or at least all of you who want to raise our taxes/cost of living. Those who don't: you're cool. Thank you.)

And that concludes my post-run rant. It's been awhile.

The North Face trail running shoe -- good for use in the Appalachian Mountains ... but seriously, they are rather small compared to the Rocky Mountains ... Sierra Nevada are sweet, too.  Would definitely use 'em in the Alps, that's for sure.  One thing's for sure -- Jerry Garcia or Bob Weir or Phil Lesh or Blaise Compaoré probably never went running in Liberia, Burkina Faso, Ouagadougou, Pyongyang, 평양 직할시 조선민주주의인민공화국 平壤直轄市 朝鮮民主主義人民共和國, Türkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Кыргызстан, Киргизия, Uzbekistan, O'zbekiston, Ўзбекистон Республикаси, Tajikistan, Тоҷикистон.  Probably the same with Brent Mydland.  At least that's my gut feeling.  I could be wrong.  I mean, there were a lot of drugs at Grateful Dead shows and the good Lord above, He knows I did my share!  P.S. DEATH TO IRAN!!!!!!!!!!!
Thursday Afternoon Run: 11 min 44 sec
-8 sec
2 Days Since My Last Run

1:20 p.m. 94° (35C) / 98° Heat Index way sunny

Running Tunes: Carrie Newcomer
First run in July. Way hot. Way, way hot. Over 90 degrees every single day. Twas 75 at dawn and 75 did not make me eager to run. Too warm. I went back to sleep. I'm sick and tired of these short afternoon runs in the heat. I feel like they do nothing for me. It's a fun challenge but that's it. I sweat my ass off, I lose a pound, I'm wiped out afterward but I don't feel like it does absolutely nothing for me in the true sense of real exercise to help keep me healthy and in shape. I dunno. Maybe someday I'll run in the morning again... it depresses me that it's been about two weeks since I have and I almost feel like I'll just run for real in the Fall. Until then I'll get fat. Hooray.
jogging Beats Per Minute Pace 1 run - 0:11:44
12 runs in JUNE:
3 hours 24 min
10 runs in May:
4 hours 9 min
8 runs in April:
3 hours 29 min
6 runs in March:
2 hours 28 min
*** FEBRUARY ***
3 hours 41 min
January 2009
2 hours 54 min
2 hours 42 min
November:2 hours 31 min


Willard said...

Hey Zoom,
You're premise is flawed here. Thomas isn't "fed up" with the Obama Administration, she's merely doing what any good reporter should do (but rarely does) - ask probing questions. She's also never been classified as a liberal and has never "kissed Obama's ass," as the question here should clearly illustrate. It's important to note that her beef (which has been roundly dismissed) regarded the White House calling a HuffPo reporter who was gathering questions from Iranians in the midst of the post election police state crackdown and The President wanted to alert HuffPo that he would take a question from THEM, the Iranians, via HuffPo. The call had nothing to do with the substance of the question. As evidenced by the question itself. If you saw the press conference, the question was a TOUGH one (even though HuffPo IS liberal)... asking Obama - point blank - if he was betraying the protesters. This is hardly an example of stacking the deck. If you want an example of THAT, google Bush questioner Jeff Gannon.

MOST importantly though... remember that even though Helen Thomas has, for decades, historically been the first person called upon to ask questions at these WH press conferences, George Bush broke that tradition and refused to even call on her for 3 years, because she's known for asking tough questions of ALL Presidents. At least this White House isn't hiding from an old woman. Credit where credit is due.

PS: Love the music.

Zoooma!! said...

I think she and others are frustrated versus how they were in the first few months of Obama's presidency. The administration said they'd be the most transparent ever but the press is seeing right through that... no pun intended, of course, because the press, if they care to, can't see through the opaque curtain the administration has put up. Their transparency has been a joke and/or an outright lie.

I don't know much about Iranian huffpo question. The video here is about the healthcare internet town hall forum they found out would be set up to take non-tough questions only.... like the ABC "special" (info-mercial) around a week ago.

Ms. Thomas has indeed professed to being a die-hard liberal and if a "journalist" is going to make that kind of statement, it's going to be difficult to do the job the way it ought to be done -- without bias. I'm pretty sure she's had that problem in the past with going beyond facts and injecting biased opinion. Commentators can do that and Helen Thomas can now do that since she's no longer a reporter but a columnist, but for straight news men and women, no bias.

Anyway, since she loves Obama, when she is really challenging him then that kind of says something. Very easily she could turn a blind eye instead... like so many others do, and just give the President a free-pass. Hopefully she'll set an example for others to question what the President is doing instead of nodding in agreement with him and then telling the American public that everything he wants is golden and should be without question. Hopefully the Kool-aid is finally wearing off.

Willard said...

Your most important point is in the first sentence... "the first few months of Obama's presidency." Judging any President by a few months is hardly fair. And while there ARE transparency issues that piss me off too (protecting Bush's torture photos and Cheney's memos, among them), I wouldn't considering throwing any Pres under the bus based on 6 months work (especially THIS PARTICULAR six months, swirling around an economic meltdown). Calling him a liar and insinuating he's already failed after a few months is hardly an open minded approach to a problem we all have to deal with.

Zoooma!! said...

He's definitely failing on just about every level... but I do keep an open mind and wait to see what happens. What I won't do, though, is say, "Well, it's only been 6 months, there's long way to go, let's see what happens." No. Shit's happening now. Jobs aren't being created now. The deficit is becoming more and more bloated now. Certain members of the government want to raise taxes/our cost of living now. The house is burning to the ground now. I'm not gonna wait until it's unrecognizable anymore before I call the fire department to see if something can be salvaged.

And I guess, even though I don't want to get into it, I've got to say about the photos you mentioned -- releasing them would mean the lives of soldiers and American citizens would be at risk more than they are right now.

I'm not sure how any American could want those photos to result in American deaths... unless they just don't care or they think those deaths will be deserved. I wonder what the attitude regarding that is -- "whatever happens happens. oh well." ?

And so I'd encourage people to think about the fact that needlessly releasing more photos would spark outrage at a time that Obama wants to bring the world together to peacefully have tea and twinkies together. His ideology is often out of whack but he's a smart man and I applaud him and respect him for wanting to prevent an increased in the deaths of Americans. If my neighbor in the Army or Marines is relatively safe right now but the pictures are released and outrage directly causes his death, that could never be a good thing. Crap like that happening will surely spell an end to Obama's relatively huge popularity within our borders. Releasing those pictures would surely make him a 1-term president. While that's what I want, I don't want lives lost to achieve that.

The Man said...

I enjoy the tunes, but not enough to deal with the political bullshit.

Zoooma!! said...

I hate politics and sometimes I wish the most important thing I worried about was who's going to win American Idol... but I don't want to be an ignorant citizen and this is important stuff (what Washington wants to try to get away with/what they're doing wrong) and sometimes my opinionated self has just got to rant. People are always free to just skip right over it (and many do! . . . and I admire that!) Hopefully we all dig on the tunes! Speaking of which, a slew shows will be coming soon!

Willard said...

Since this could go on forever, I'll just say two things in conclusion.

You bring up a great point about the photos. Releasing them could be dangerous... Obama's own words. NOT releasing them makes him a liar for not keeping his word on transparency. Regardless of one's politics, surely you can see that there are countless situations in the WH - just like this one - where you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. SOMEBODY, just like you (and me), will take exception on one side or another. He made a reasonable, thoughtful decision in this case. You sound like you think he was accidentally reasonable and thoughtful on this one point alone. I happen to think he's a reasonable and thoughtful man in general.

And the second point is that I'm only submitting... all details, debates and sidelines aside... that you're being too harsh on the man, too early.

However... I'll be willing to take that comment back if you were THIS harsh on Bush. I can only hope so... because Obama's lies - as you've called them - are about questions, paperwork and transparency. Bush's lies we're unthinkable... turning us, for the first time, into a nation that tortures and a nation that invades and takes over countries without provocation. And THOSE lies cost us a lot of lives. If you were just as harsh on Bush, then you're a consistent thinker. If not... then I submit you're being unduly harsh now.

Anonymous said...


Zooma, it's me, "Lefty".

I don't know if "you were THIS harsh on Bush. I can only hope so... because Obama's lies - as you've called them - are about questions, paperwork and transparency. Bush's lies we're unthinkable... turning us, for the first time, into a nation that tortures and a nation that invades and takes over countries without provocation. And THOSE lies cost us a lot of lives. If you were just as harsh on Bush, then you're a consistent thinker. If not..." this could go on forever", but, I believe that Willard makes an excellent point here - I wasn't reading your blog during the Bush years, but I would hope that you were as vocal (ranting) and as critical...but, I suspect NOT. From what I have read (your "Impeach Obama" mode), you REFUSE to recognize the FACT that Bush was the worst president (bar none!) and that the Texas shitheal is largely responsible (*I know, he was just the "perfect stooge" for the REAL rulers of the world, i.e., the Bilderbergs...), but YOU have NO problem in delegating blame (President Obama, despite the fact that he stepped into a mountain of shit the Bush administration allowed/expedited), so for this exercise, neither will I.

What is it with you??? Is it just prejudice? ("deadman" are you out there?) Or, are you really brainwashed - what's good for "The ELITE" is good for me because I suck on traditional "conservative" values (- no taxes, no niggers, no gays, no opposing views)?

Zoooma!! said...

1) Obama wasn't accidentally reasonable on not releasing the photos but I do think he was pressured into it by military commanders who knew more about it than he did (which is also the reason why he's not ending the war in Iraq as soon as he told people he would because military commanders know more than the guy campaigning for president. Often the President wakes up on Day 1 and realizes it's a whole 'nother reality and campaign promises will need to be broken.)

But I digress... I think he certainly would have released the photos just like he would have made veterans pay for their own health care if it weren't for others telling him his idea is a dumb one.

2) I am harsh on Obama and I wasn't harsh on Bush because the man woke up everyday with this in mind -- make sure it doesn't happen again. He kept us safe. There are some who will say "No, he didn't" but were we attacked again since 9/11? No. I also wasn't harsh on Bush because he had no ideas about socializing America. The bailouts that he started were bad he had no ideas about hiking our taxes/our cost of living. He also gave more money to help Africa than any president before him. He's also giving over 50,000,000 people a chance at freedom, a chance at a promising life, free from the oppression they lived under. I'd've died fighting to help others have that right. Freedom isn't just for Americans. Freedom is for everyone. Helping over 50,000,000 people have that chance is a noble thing and if in the future the results are good, who'll be thanked for that? Bush. Why were there so many protests in Iran recently? One of the reasons is they saw the freedom that Iraq is getting and THEY WANT IT TOO!!! Why were their signs in English? So Obama would read them and get their message. They want freedom like the freedom that Iraq will be basking in the glow of because of President Bush. And if Bush invaded Iran -- so many of them would be kissing his ass because they'd be on their way to freedom also. Don't underestimate what he played a part in for a LOT of people who really really needed it.

3) Bush turned us into a torturing nation? A grand total of 3 high level terrorists were interrogated using enhanced methods including waterboarding while doctors stood by to make sure the terrorist wasn't injured. High level intelligence officers have testified that these methods yielded information which prevented additional loss of life following 9/11. If I was President, I'd use those methods all day long if it meant saving lives. Which is more justified? Waterboarding one who lives to see his next meal or allowing many people to die? Would life lost in a terrorist attack on American soul be justified? What would the result be? Would American citizens stand for having a president who would sacrifice American lives so we don't make one man uncomfortable for an hour or so? I don't think so.

4a) Which countries did we invade and take over under Bush without provocation? Iraq never attacked us. But there was evidence they had WMD and we knew Hussein was an unstable man. Should we have left him alone? Should we have allowed him to continue filling schoolhouses with weapons while never helping his people with money from the Oil for Food program? Bottomline is did not abide by the treaty which put a ceasefire to the end of the Persian Gulf War so we had every right to finish it. It's not like Hussein was a peaceful oppressive genocidal dictator minding his own business... we had no idea what he was capable of and we were not going to allow more loss of life from a man like that immediately following 9/11. The evidence was there. We found out after the fact that it was wrong but at the time, taking out such a man was just fine. The loss of life has been horrible and it's brought tears to my eyes. What's also brought tears to my eyes is how people have no choice but to live under such dictatorships and again, I'd've died to help give those people freedom.

Zoooma!! said...

4b) The Taliban never deserved to be attacked and removed? The Taliban who cut people's heads off in the town square? The Taliban who think it's justified to throw acid on a woman's face if she talks to another man? The Taliban who was harboring Osama bin Laden? We can't help everyone in the world but if we can help a few, say 55,000,000 or so in a couple countries, that's not a bad thing. We shouldn't be Americans, we should be human beings who help others and Afghanistan needed the help almost more than anyone. It's not like we're making those countries ours. Last time I checked, you need a passport to get in and out of those places. We don't own them. We're helping them... just like we helped Europe in WWII. Hopefully you'd agree that Japan provoked us but how many times did we get attacked on American soul by Hitler? I'm not sure he truly provoked us. Getting rid of evil doesn't have to be on a Hitler level alone. It can also be on the Hussein and Taliban level also.

5) To say Bush was the worst ever bar none is plain ignorant of the fact that the man kept us safe since 9/11 and he made it his goal to turn two lands into democratic and peaceful places where 50 to 55,000,000 people are free from dictatorships and oppression. He's also given more to Africa than any other president. That certainly can't qualify him as worst ever bar none. It appears blind hatred is leading you to believe these things without actually rationally thinking it through.

Lefty, for goodness sakes, STOP living in yesterday. Bush isn't president. There's no need to keep bringing him up ad nauseum. He's not relevant in everything Obama does. Bush isn't causing Obama to inflate our deficit times four or whatever it's on its way to. Bush isn't why Obama's thinking of raising our daily cost of living/our taxes. Bush isn't the reason unemployment KEEPS GOING UP despite almost $800,000,000,000 in "stimulus" money. That money was misspent under Obama. Bush is gone. Get over it. He's out of office. Yes, I realize what he did has plenty of impact on the now but today is all about Obama.

Honestly I don't what your mention of "what's good for 'The ELITE'" is referring to.

And what is it with YOU??? I don't know why you mentioned prejudice. Because I disagree with Obama? Yes, yes, because I disagree with the black man's policies then I MUST be prejudiced. Right. He's black so I'm supposed to support him. Ummm... come on now, you oughta know better than that.

And by the way, conservative values means no niggers? Really? Huh. I didn't know that part. Hey, who's that guy who runs the RNC? He must really be white. I guess he parades around in black shoe polish.

And conservatism doesn't necessarily mean no taxes, no gays, no opposing viewpoints. Talk about those who want to quash opposing viewpoints, my God, liberals are more fascist than conservatives by a mile. Recent study says conservatives more often get their news from both viewpoints. Liberals? From lefty news sources only. And then when conservatives protest against the Democrats it's called shameful and/or they're all racists, every last one of them. AND then the White House, on ABC News, has a town hall forum to discuss healthcare and is there anyone to argue the president's points? No... no opposing viewpoints welcome.

And no taxes? It's not that conservatives/Republicans don't want taxes, they don't believe Joe Millionaire should have to foot the bill for 1,000 of his neighbors who don't have to pay a thing. Sure, make the tax system progressive if you want it that way -- but not utterly fucking ridiculous. Obama wants like the 10% wealthiest to pay all the taxes for the rest of America or something like that. It's already close to that -- the top 5% already pay like 75% of the nation's taxes... just because they're successful. (Now maybe if they were getting free week-long vacations to the Space Station it would be worth it but last time I checked, that's not provided.)

Zoooma!! said...

Obama wants some people to pay no taxes at all yet their kids use the schools, they need military defense also, they use the same roads, etc. No taxes but they get the very same benefits? Something about that ain't right.

Taxes are fine but not out of control ones and not higher ones than now and especially not if it means that part of my paycheck goes to pay for welfare mom to have her fifth baby from the fifth different man nor do I want to be paying for the braces that Tom Cruise puts on his kids teeth. No need for my taxes to be used on people who can already afford what they need. I want what I earn to stay in MY family. Doesn't mean I don't want no taxes. It means we want them to be fair and NOT misspent by the billions... or even by the trillions as Obama seems to have no problem doing. I also don't want my kids to have to pay the price which they are going to have to. The burden is going to fall on future generations and then look at the problems in California. Geezuz, their problems could be Americans problems unless we tax the hell out of everyone to pay for all the programs the President and minions in his Congress want. Tax the hell out of us and we won't have enough money to spend on other things. Manufacturing will go down, factories will close, imports will decrease, businesses will close, people will lose their jobs and unemployment will rise. Not to mention throwing money at all these entitlement programs means the dollar is slowly losing its value on the world market and it could collapse leaving America in a depression with inflation and unemployment like we haven't seen.

Things just ain't bein' managed properly in the WH and on Capitol Hill. Americans, in general, want LOWER taxes (or at least for them to NOT go up) and they certainly don't want a cost of living increase. Americans also want MORE JOBS... but that's not happening. The tax, tax, tax attitude will prevent that happening... just consult Ronald Reagan. When he slashed taxes, GDP rose and unemployment went down. GDP isn't rising... oh, but government spending is. That's not good, in fact, that spells disaster.

Americans will make it loud and clear in the next elections that they're pissed off and they want people who might be more capable of getting the job done right. If the trends of the current administration continue, then in Nov 2010 and Nov 2012, Republicans will be back in the majority and maybe back in charge overall.

Anonymous said...

"Obama wants like the 10% wealthiest to pay all the taxes for the rest of America or something like that. It's already close to that -- the top 5% already pay like 75% of the nation's taxes..." - and since the top 5% already "own" 96% of the wealth...maybe that's fair.

"Americans will make it loud and clear in the next elections that they're pissed off and they want people who might be more capable of getting the job done right." - wasn't that the response to the Cheney/Bush years.


Zoooma!! said...

"since the top 5% already "own" 96% of the wealth...maybe that's fair."

The top 5% don't use 96% of the highways. The top 5% shouldn't have to pay for 96% of the NASA budget or the budget for the Department of Defense.

I understand some people can't afford taxes because they make next to nothing -- but they can afford and should pay something if they live in this country.

Just because Joe Citizen has been successful, it's NOT fair to tax most of his earnings when he doesn't use any more services than the next guy. The government should not be taking more of what he worked hard to earn just because he can afford to pay it. Not by any stretch of the imagination is that right... not to mention it causes successful people to not be able to create more jobs... or if you raise their taxes, they might actually have to lay people off which then creates higher unemployment.

But if higher unemployment is the goal then by all means, the government should raise taxes!

Anonymous said...

"The top 5% don't use 96% of the highways. The top 5% shouldn't have to pay for 96% of the NASA budget or the budget for the Department of Defense." -- Some believe that the wealthy have a disproportionately greater interest in maintaining societal goods typically supported by taxation such as security of property rights, defense and infrastructure, as they have much more to lose if these fail than do the poor.

Anonymous said...

In case you missed it - Paris Hilton's and Kelsey Grammer's (to name just two) version of The American Dream is significantly better (READ: "WAY more!") than Alex Jackson's, Ralph Torres's, Stanley Witkowski's, etc, etc, so, FUCKING RIGHT(!) - they SHOULD pay MORE.

Maybe you can explain again the part about "how hard they worked to earn" or about "successful people to not be able to create more jobs..." -- NO disrespect, but you are a fuckin' simpleton. You swallow the "Official" version of what happened on 9/11, and you suck down (burp!) the nonsense that the war in Iraq (the "War On Terror") has any fuckin' thing to do with "FREEDOM" or "Democracy" - WAKE UP!!! ALL wars (at least since the Crusades) are about MONEY - A LOT of MONEY! Hey, sleep well knowing that Bush "kept us safe" - he flipped a (magical) switch and our security suddenly became air tight (fuckin' moron). I guess you are equipped to deal with it all only through denial? At least you like some good music...(ever hear Pearl Jam?)

Love, brother.


Zoooma!! said...

Hmm, which words did I use to put you down? I should just delete your response and any others from now on. I don't need to take that. I don't have time for it. And if you're another 9/11 conspiracy person then I will most definitely have no time for you. The Bildenberg thing I could tolerate but calling 9/11 anything other than what it was... that's just messed up.

I'm just wondering (rhetorically at this point) -- if responsibility for so much falls on Bush, then why isn't he responsible for keeping us safe since 9/11? If not him, who? Democrats?

Don't bother answering as I could possibly have continued sanely discussing things with you but I'm not going to have time if you feel it's okay to hurl insults my way. Adios, Lefty.

P.S. no, celebrities or anyone who makes gobs of money shouldn't automatically have to pay a significantly higher percentage in taxes. Often some of those people get real lucky, often some work real hard, and in many ways they're just like you and I, they don't use more highways, they don't use more military, they don't use more of the International Space Station. They don't have more to lose because in the event of a crisis, they'll have money, they'll be okay. The people who need protection the MOST from foreign invaders and terrorism are those who can't afford to lose their jobs. In the event of a war or whatever unthinkable crisis there could be, many would suffer but it won't be the millionaires. Therefore I submit it's everyone else who should be paying for government protection while the millionaires don't need to so much.

Anyway, once again, no one should be punished for being successful in order to give that money in the form of entitlement services to someone who has no desire to go and be a success themselves. Or just because someone doesn't have a high paying job, that doesn't mean they should be getting handouts from the government. Democrats want to get to the point where if Americans work hard and earn a lot of money, that's good because others won't have to do a damn thing. The most successful people will be taxed up the ying yang in order to give to everyone else. Okay... something ain't right there. Conspiracy bullshit aside, I'm sure you're brilliant enough to figure out what it is.

Once again, once again -- Adios, Lefty.

Anonymous said...

Z - I was COMPLETELY OUT OF LINE and just plain WRONG to call you names. I sincerely apologize.

Conspiracy? Not AT ALL. Suffice to say that what transpired on 9/11 could NOT possibly have happened the way the "Official" explanation claims.

Taxes are extortion and we ALL are getting robbed. (Google on taxes and the relationship to national debt/deficet - start there) The fuckin' international banking families should be exterminated.

And, obviously, if you think about it - millionaires do have MUCH more to lose than the avarage (or closer to poverty level, these days) working stiff.

"Adios" if you insist - it is YOUR blog. But, from my point of view, my couple of rude outbursts aside, it's been interesting.


Zoooma!! said...

Millionaires have more to lose in the monetary sense, sure. But in the event of a crisis, they're going to be okay. They won't have to worry about putting food on the table for their family. In the event of a crisis, Joe Citizen may lose his job and have no idea how he's going to feed his family. The average citizen certainly has more to lose in the sense of what's most important -- providing for family needs.

And please don't walk this Earth thinking there's more to 9/11 than there is. It's a rather simple thing that those 19 pieces of shit did. They had funding from Al Qaeda, they had time, the leaders of the operation weren't idiots. We lived in a time where security was a lot less stringent and watchful than it is now. Sadly we might drift back to that and it's not necessarily Obama's fault -- that's often what happens with time after an event like that. Occasionally we hear a story where an airport worker helped someone get a gun on a plane. What if it's a bomb? What if that happens 10 times in one day as part of a plan? Conspiracy from the highest? "Damn that George W. Bush, STILL causing problems," people would say. Give me a break. I'm sorry but if you're a 9/11 Conspiracy person then I don't have time for you. That was too personal for me and to think it's more than it was is disrespectful to those whose lives have been affected by that horrible day.

Anonymous said...


You keep dwelling on a crisis scenario. A true crisis (and I hope we never experience it) could act as a GREAT "equalizer" (i.e., nobody's millions could do them any good). Tax dollars, no matter who pays what percentage very likely may not be able to prevent a crisis. Do a little research on where our tax dollars actually go. (Now, that might be viewed as a "crisis".)

No doubt what happened on 9/11 was despicable beyond words - worse than Pearl Harbor (or as you might say, "worse than Hitler"), but there was more to it ("... those 19 pieces of shit...funding from Al Qaeda...") than that. There is an awful lot of evidence which supports this. Sadly, that is just FACT. You have my sincere sympathy for any personal loss you suffered.


one says one number and the other another
but they were set at the same time. Hmmm...

Calvin and Hobbes in the snow -- animated